Skip to content
JvH
—Illustrative scenarios

The claim archetypes we assess.

Representative file types the firm is calibrated for. These are illustrative — not specific case files, not historical outcomes, not a guarantee of recovery. They exist to help a merchant recognise whether the structural facts of their file align with the firm's operating scope.

Illustrative scenarios. The counterparties, quantum ranges and facts are generic and representative — they do not describe specific merchants, specific counterparties, or specific historical recoveries. No outcome is implied. Complexity and posture indicators describe a typical archetype, not a commitment in respect of any specific matter. Each actual file is assessed on its own facts. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or creates an engagement.
Quantum spectrum
Each archetype shown against the firm's full operating band.
01 EUR 850k – 2.1M 02 EUR 500k – 1.2M 03 EUR 1.5M – 4.5M 04 EUR 250k – 600k 05 EUR 180k – 450k 06 EUR 280k – 650k 07 EUR 3.0M – 8.0M
Each archetype is shown as a filled segment on a shared horizontal axis from EUR 100,000 to over EUR 10 million.
Filter archetypes
7 of 7 shown
By head of claim
By complexity
By jurisdiction
At a glance
# Archetype Counterparty Quantum Complexity
01 Rolling reserve retained beyond the release window EMI · LT · Bank of Lithuania EUR 850k – 2.1M Standard file
02 Settlement balance withheld on termination PI · GB · FCA EUR 500k – 1.2M Standard file
03 Scheme recoveries collected but not passed through Credit institution · IE · Central Bank of Ireland EUR 1.5M – 4.5M Higher complexity
04 Scheme integrity programme fine without underlying determination Financial institution · MT · MFSA EUR 250k – 600k Standard file
05 Chargeback programme assessment without documented calculation EMI · CY · Central Bank of Cyprus EUR 180k – 450k Lower complexity
06 Refund liability or pass-through cost charged without contractual basis PI · IE · Central Bank of Ireland EUR 280k – 650k Standard file
07 Multi-entity group claim with aggregated exposure Acquirer · GB · FCA EUR 3.0M – 8.0M Higher complexity
01

Rolling reserve retained beyond the release window.

LT EMI · Bank of Lithuania
EUR 850k – 2.1M
Standard file Pre-action settlement typical
Heads of claim engaged
  • Rolling reserve retained beyond release period
Read the full archetype +
Trigger event
  • A 10% rolling reserve accrues monthly under the merchant services agreement.
  • The contractual release schedule provides for staged release at 180 and 270 days.
  • The first tranche releases on time; subsequent tranches stop without explanation.
  • The counterparty cites a generic risk review but does not produce a determination.
Documentary signal
  • MSA with executed reserve and release schedules.
  • Monthly settlement reports showing reserve accrual.
  • Written merchant request for release of held tranches.
  • Counterparty correspondence on the partial release.
What makes the file strong
  • Written reserve schedule with explicit release dates.
  • Written request for release post-dating the contractual release date.
  • At least one partial release evidencing the contractual mechanic.
What makes the file marginal
  • Reserve schedule oral or not executed.
  • No contemporaneous written request for release on file.
  • Counterparty has produced a documented risk determination.
Recovery framework

Formal demand cites the release schedule and the absence of a documented determination. Supervisory engagement available in the home Member State on conduct grounds.

Related Jurisdiction profile → Commercial structure → FAQ: strong vs marginal files →
02

Settlement balance withheld on termination.

GB PI · FCA
EUR 500k – 1.2M
Standard file Supervisory engagement typical
Heads of claim engaged
  • Withheld settlement balance
Read the full archetype +
Trigger event
  • The counterparty terminates the MSA for cause and withholds the final settlement balance.
  • The stated basis is risk review and unspecified chargeback exposure.
  • The chargeback window applicable to processed transactions has expired.
  • No itemised set-off is produced after written request.
Documentary signal
  • MSA and termination notice.
  • Settlement ledger to the date of termination.
  • Chargeback history through the post-termination window.
  • Written merchant requests for accounting and the counterparty acknowledgement.
What makes the file strong
  • Termination notice in writing with stated cause.
  • Held balance identifiable as a single line on the ledger.
  • Chargeback window demonstrably expired (typically 120 days post-processing).
What makes the file marginal
  • Termination oral or undocumented.
  • Held balance disputed at the line level by the counterparty.
  • Chargeback window still open and live chargebacks accumulating.
Recovery framework

Forensic reconciliation isolates the settlement balance against scheme passthrough data. Formal demand under the MSA. Where the asserted set-off is unsubstantiated, supervisory engagement on conduct grounds.

Related Jurisdiction profile → Commercial structure → FAQ: strong vs marginal files →
03

Scheme recoveries collected but not passed through.

IE Credit institution · Central Bank of Ireland · acquirer
EUR 1.5M – 4.5M
Higher complexity Pre-action settlement typical
Heads of claim engaged
  • Scheme passthrough recovery (Visa, Mastercard, other)
Read the full archetype +
Trigger event
  • Scheme passthrough reports show recoveries due to the merchant — incorrect interchange and assessment reversals.
  • The counterparty collects the scheme credits but does not pass them through.
  • Multiple settlement cycles are affected.
  • The merchant request for accounting produces a general response.
Documentary signal
  • Scheme passthrough reports for the relevant cycles.
  • Counterparty settlement reports showing absence of credit.
  • MSA passthrough provisions.
  • Scheme correspondence where available.
What makes the file strong
  • Discrete scheme cycles identifiable from merchant-side records.
  • Settlement reports show a clear absence of credit on the relevant cycles.
  • MSA expressly provides for passthrough on the relevant programme.
What makes the file marginal
  • Passthrough mechanism in the MSA is general or non-specific.
  • Scheme cycles are not cleanly identifiable on the merchant side.
  • Counterparty produces documented netting against contemporaneous fines.
Recovery framework

Quantum reconstructed by scheme cycle. Contractual demand on the passthrough obligation. Where the obligation is disputed, the matter is escalated as a regulated-conduct issue.

Related Jurisdiction profile → Commercial structure → FAQ: strong vs marginal files →
04

Scheme integrity programme fine without underlying determination.

MT Financial institution · MFSA
EUR 250k – 600k
Standard file Supervisory engagement typical
Heads of claim engaged
  • VIRP fine or scheme assessment contested as unproven
  • Internal adjustment unsupported by documentary evidence
Read the full archetype +
Trigger event
  • A fine assessed under a scheme integrity programme (e.g. Visa Integrity Risk Program, or an analogous Mastercard programme) is debited from the settlement account.
  • The counterparty produces no underlying scheme notice, no determination letter, and no calculation supporting the fine quantum.
  • The merchant requests substantiation in writing; the response is general.
Documentary signal
  • Settlement ledger entry recording the fine.
  • Written merchant requests for substantiation.
  • Counterparty correspondence on the matter.
  • MSA fine pass-through provisions and scheme programme rules in force at the relevant date.
What makes the file strong
  • Fine line clearly identifiable on the settlement ledger.
  • MSA pass-through provision requires a documented scheme assessment as the predicate.
  • Written request for substantiation predates any counterparty justification.
What makes the file marginal
  • Counterparty produces a contemporaneous scheme notice on point.
  • MSA permits pass-through on a general basis without documentary predicate.
  • Merchant volume in the programme review period is materially elevated.
Recovery framework

Fine is contested as unproven on the documentary record. Pass-through is only permissible against a documented scheme assessment; absent documentation, the deduction is reversed.

Related Jurisdiction profile → Commercial structure → FAQ: strong vs marginal files →
05

Chargeback programme assessment without documented calculation.

CY EMI · Central Bank of Cyprus
EUR 180k – 450k
Lower complexity Pre-action settlement typical
Heads of claim engaged
  • Chargeback programme assessment contested as unproven
Read the full archetype +
Trigger event
  • The counterparty applies a chargeback ratio breach fine to the merchant settlement.
  • The documentary record does not show the calculation, the lookback period, or the volume base used.
  • The merchant disputes the chargeback ratio underlying the fine.
Documentary signal
  • Settlement ledger with the fine line item.
  • Chargeback history (scheme- and counterparty-derived).
  • Counterparty fine notice.
  • MSA chargeback provisions and monthly volume reports.
What makes the file strong
  • Fine is line-itemised on the settlement ledger.
  • Chargeback history fully reconstructable from merchant-side records.
  • MSA provides a defined chargeback threshold and calculation method.
What makes the file marginal
  • Fine is bundled inside another deduction line.
  • Chargeback history partial or incomplete on the merchant side.
  • MSA leaves the chargeback fine to counterparty discretion.
Recovery framework

Counter-calculation performed on the chargeback history; volume base reconstructed. Where the fine cannot be reconciled to the documented record, the deduction is contested under the MSA and supervisory framework.

Related Jurisdiction profile → Commercial structure → FAQ: strong vs marginal files →
06

Refund liability or pass-through cost charged without contractual basis.

IE PI · Central Bank of Ireland
EUR 280k – 650k
Standard file Pre-action settlement typical
Heads of claim engaged
  • Refund liability or pass-through cost
Read the full archetype +
Trigger event
  • A recurring-billing merchant accumulates a refund-related pass-through charge on the settlement ledger that exceeds the MSA fee schedule.
  • The counterparty cites a refund cost pass-through but produces no calculation.
  • The merchant request for the underlying scheme or contractual basis returns a general response.
Documentary signal
  • Settlement ledger showing the refund pass-through line.
  • MSA fee schedule and pass-through provisions.
  • Counterparty charge notices.
  • Refund volume reports from the merchant side.
What makes the file strong
  • Fee schedule is explicit on which refund-related costs are passed through and at what rate.
  • Pass-through line is line-itemised on the settlement ledger.
  • Merchant has independent refund volume data to support counter-calculation.
What makes the file marginal
  • Fee schedule grants the counterparty broad discretion on pass-through.
  • Pass-through line is consolidated into a generic adjustment.
  • Refund volume disputed between merchant and counterparty records.
Recovery framework

Reconciliation of the pass-through line against the MSA fee schedule and merchant-side refund volume. Where the pass-through exceeds the contractual basis, the excess is contested under the MSA.

Related Jurisdiction profile → Commercial structure → FAQ: strong vs marginal files →
07

Multi-entity group claim with aggregated exposure.

GB Acquirer · FCA · pan-EU
EUR 3.0M – 8.0M
Higher complexity Proceedings preparation typical
Heads of claim engaged
  • Withheld settlement balance
  • Rolling reserve retained beyond release period
  • Internal adjustment unsupported by documentary evidence
Read the full archetype +
Trigger event
  • Multiple merchant entities under a single group structure process under one MSA umbrella, or under closely-related MSAs with the same counterparty.
  • Reserves, withheld settlements and unsupported deductions accumulate across the entities.
  • Aggregate exposure is material; individual entity exposures may sit below the materiality threshold if considered in isolation.
  • Inter-entity netting has historically been tolerated without a clean documentary trail.
Documentary signal
  • MSA(s) and any group amendments or side letters.
  • Settlement ledgers per merchant entity.
  • Reserve schedules per merchant entity.
  • Group-level accounting reconciliation and correspondence.
What makes the file strong
  • Clear group structure with clear contractual identity per entity.
  • Settlement ledgers cleanly attribute to individual entities.
  • Group-level correspondence with the counterparty exists on the substantive issues.
What makes the file marginal
  • Inter-entity netting historically tolerated without a documentary trail.
  • Group structure changes (M&A, restructuring) blur attribution.
  • Multiple termination events across entities create defensive arguments on standing.
Recovery framework

Aggregation across entities under a coordinated procedural framework, including joinder where required. Forensic reconciliation conducted at both entity and group level. Commercial settlement remains the preferred outcome.

Related Jurisdiction profile → Commercial structure → FAQ: strong vs marginal files →
—

If your file resembles one of these.

Resemblance to a scenario is not a guarantee of fit. Each actual file is assessed on its own facts, documentary record and structural features — including features outside the archetypes above. The fastest path to a view is the five-minute fit check; the full file submission supports a substantive assessment.

Submit fit check → Submit full file